Checkpoint #1: For my Medievalist for a Semester project, I am going to explore "Eirik the Red's Saga." I'm very excited to explore an Icelandic Saga! Checkpoint #2: Summary: Eirik the Red's Saga
Eirik the Red's saga, oddly enough, starts out telling the tales of previous King's and other well known vikings, it almost seems to be a tribute to previous viking kings/explorers. Next, we discover the reason Eirik settled Greenland in the first place, it was actually because he had been exiled from his home. He got into a dispute with a kinsman, Eirik's slaves caused a landslide which fell on his kinsman's farm, which in turn caused his kinsman to kill Eirik's slave. Eirik got angered by this, and killed his kinsman, thus being sent into exile. Eirik told his friends before leaving that if he discovered the land he was looking for, he would send word for his friends.
This begins Thorbjorn's part of the tale, who was a friend of Eirik. He explained to his kinsman that he has lived a good life here, but now wishes to take up Eirik's offer. He sold his lands, bought a ship, took his wife and thirty of his men, and began his journey towards Greenland and Eirik. When Thorbjorn finally arrived in Greenland, Eirik was beyond happy to see him, and gave him land, where he lived a good life from then on.
Eirik had a wife called Thjodhild and two sons, Thorstein and Leif. Thornstein lived at home with Eirik, and Leif sailed to Norway where he was one of King Olaf's men. Before Leif reached Norway, however, his ship had been blown off course to the Hebrides, and had to spend most of their summer in the islands, due to not catching a favorable wind. While he stayed at Hebrides, Leif fell in love with a woman, Thorgunna. Thorgunna wished to sail with Leif when he left for Greenland again, Leif was reluctant until Thorgunna told him she was carrying his child, he ended up marrying her and taking her with him.
After they left, Leif and his men made land in Norway in the autumn. This is when he became one of the king's men. The king's first request of Leif was to sail to Greenland and convert it to Christianity. Leif explained to the king this may not go over well, and be matched with harsh resistance. The king told him to sail regardless, Leif set out for Greenland.
Leif landed in Eiriksfjord, he went home to the famr at Brattahlid where he began to spread the word of King Olaf and Christianity throughout the country. Eirik was reluctant to convert, but his wife, Thjodhild was quick to convert and had a church built close to the house. This is where she prayed with many others who converted, and refused to sleep with Eirik after her conversion.
Eventually, Eirik and his son Thorstein set out with a group of men to find the land that Leif discovered, they came close to Iceland and Ireland, but failed to reach their intended destination, they ended up back in Eiriksfjord, where they had set sail from earlier that summer. They went home to Brattahlid and spent the winter there.
Thorstein married Gudrid, promptly after their wedding they went to his namesake in Lysufjord, where sickness struck the farm shortly after the start of winter. Sigrid, Thorstein, and Thorbjorn died from the sickness. Gudrid went to live with Eirik.
During the autumn, Karlsefni and his companions landed in Eiriksfjord (Karlsefni lived in Iceland). When they landed, Eirik and his Greenlanders immediately began to trade with them. After a very successful Yule feast, Karlsefni asked Eirik for Gudrid's hand in marriage. The winter consisted of much merrymaking in Brattahlid, seeing as Eirik agreed to Karlsefni's offer and said it was a fine match.
During the winter, there was a lot of talk about Karlsefni and Snorri (one of his kinsman) setting sail for Vinland. Thorvald, Eirik's son, accompanied them on the voyage to Vinland, along with numerous of Eirik's kinsman, such as Thorhall the Huntsman. Thorhall was not a fan of the conversion that had come through Greendland, and generally kept to himself and was insulting but barely spoke a word. Nevertheless, he was trusted by Eirik. They eventually landed in Kjalarnes, and meant to see if the land was suitable or not. Since two scouts had returned with good crops, Karlsefni decided this was a good piece of land, and then continued to sail until they reached a fjord. This fjord is where they unloaded the cargo, and spent the winter there.
This winter ended up being very harsh, they had not anticipated for it, and soon grew short on food. They set out to find food, but found very little. They asked God for help, and did not get as speedy of a response as they would like. At the same time, Thorhall went missing, when they found him days later he was standing at the edge of a cliff with his eyes to the sky mumbling something. They wondered what he was doing, to which he said don't concern yourself. Regardless, they brought him back with them. Shortly after this they found a beached whale, no one recognized what type of whale it was, but they boiled the meat and ate it anyway. The meat ended up making them sick, and Thorhall said it was a gift from his God, Thor. Once the rest of the men found this, they did not want to eat the whale anymore and threw it away, praying for forgiveness from their God. After this the weather improved, and they had plenty of food for the rest of the winter. In the spring they moved further into Straumsfjord and lived on produce of hunting inland and fishing at the shoreline.
They then then meant to set out again, but Thorhall wanted to head further North, and Karlsefni wished to sail further south. They eventually split up, after Thorhall separated with his crew from Karlsefni, they ended up accidently landing in Ireland, where they were beaten and enslaved, which is where Thorhall died.
Karlsefni and his men successfully ended up sailing further south, and found even more bountiful land. They also found natives to trade with, people they had never seen before. They traded peacefully at first, until a bull of Karlsefni's escaped and frightened the natives. They next day they returned and began fighting with Karlsefni and his men, they retreated back north to the fjord they originally landed at. One morning while at Straimsfjord Karlsefni's men saw something shiny above a clearing in the trees, a one legged man came down to the shop and shot Thorvald, he died shortly after.
After this encounter, they decided to spend their third winter in Straumsfjord, during autumn sailed south to Markland where they met 5 natives. They ended up taking the two children and baptized them and taught them their ways. After this they sailed back to Greenland and spent the winter with Eirik the Red. The following summer, Karlsefni sailed for Iceland with Gudrid and went home to his farm at Reynines.
Quote 1: “Leif also chanced upon men clinging to a ship's wreck, whom he brought home and found shelter for over the winter. In so doing, he showed his strong character and kindness. He converted the country to Christianity.* Afterwards he became known as Leif the Lucky” (Kunz, pp 661).
The reason I picked this quote is because simply how much it threw me off guard. During this point in the saga, Leif is discussing with King Olaf about sailing to Greenland and converting it to Christianity, shortly after being told how he set sail and was being tossed around at sea, it discusses how he found men clinging to a shop's wreck, then this line popped up out of no where “He converted the country to Christianity.*” I did not even have to read the explanation following the asterisk at the bottom of the page to know this was out of place. The asterisk says that the whole sentence, or even paragraph, seems to be misplaced. The country the excerpt is talking about refers to Greenland. Why was this misplaced though? There was never another misplaced paragraph, it could be because it was mistranslated, or it got mixed up during the rewriting of the story, or because of all the other “Christian lens” quotes I have found throughout this text, it was put there on purpose to help reinforce the fact to the reader that Leif converted Greenland, before it even happened. I related this idea to the discussion we had in class about how the literate ones were the priests and monks, and maybe this was done on purpose to help embed this idea in the reader's mind.
Quote 2: “Once they heard this no one wanted to eat the whale meat, they cast it off a cliff and threw themselves at God's mercy. The weather improved so they could go fishing, and from then on they had supplies in plenty” (Kunz, pp 668).
This quote struck me as quite odd as well, keeping with that Christian lens theme. Karlsefni and his men had found a whale thanks to Thorhall and his prayers to Thor (they did not know this was the reason they found it when they began eating the whale) so they decided to eat it and then became ill shortly after eating the whale. This quote came into context right after Thorhall told them the whale was essentially a gift from Thor. There is that idea of the Christian lens again, a group of men find a whale (that they do not recognize in anyway, even if Karlsefni conveniently has a wide knowledge about whales), presume to eat said whale, then become ill and find out it was eaten in a pagan context, for lack of better terms. The men pray to God, the weather clears, birds chirp, there is plenty of food, and they all live happily ever after. This point in the plot only further leads me to believe that this was part was written to try and show that God was better than a pagan deity, especially since Thorhall specifically says something along the lines of “Dear Old Redbeard” (Thor) proving to be better and provide more help than Christ.
Quote 3: “They then separated, and Thorhall and his Crew sailed north past Furdustrandir and Kjalarnes, and from there attempted to sail to the west of it. But they ran into storms and were driven ashore in Ireland, where they were beaten and enslaved. There Thorhall died” (Kunz, pp 669).
Keeping with this idea of viewing it through a Christian lens or this work being influenced (possibly falsely) by the educated Christians hearing the story, I chose to pick this quote on the next page. Shortly after eating the whale they discuss where to sail next, Thorhall wishes to sail north where as Karlsefni wishes to sail south. Thorhall had already been described earlier in the text as essentially hating the conversion that came through Greenland, and the religion that came with it. I knew this would come into play later in the text, and it did multiple times. This time being the last for Thorhall, since he was enslaved and killed. The point I am getting at is before they split, Thorhall said what looked to be almost prayers (they called them verses) about his pagan religion. Immediately after saying these, him and Karlsefni split up and Thorhall got tossed at sea, landed in Ireland, and died. While Karlsefni, the Christian, sailed safely southward, and even made it safely back home after his voyage was concluded, when the saga ended.
Annotated Bibliography #1
Matti Kaups, Douglas R. McManis, Brian Birch and John C. Hudson. Some Observations on Vinland.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 603-609.
The author is mainly concerned with providing evidence, from other authors in the Annals text and authors outside the text, to attempt to prove that Eirik the Red's Saga proves a “pre-Columbian Norse discovery of America,” but also that there is clarification needed on the contradictory statement “there is not a Vinland; there are many Vinlands.” The author is stating that these multiple Vinlands “discovered” by other scholars (Rafn's Vinland, Mowat's Vinland, etc) need to be associated with the respective author so these locations are not to be confused with the Vinland region and sites in the sagas. The author does a good job of backing up his evidence, citing the authors other statements and then providing either a supportive analysis, or a counter analysis. He even goes into detail describing latitude and longitude of certain scholars Vinlands compared too where the Vinland in the saga may have been described. Even if the article was a little hard to follow, I think it is immensely useful to have while one reads Eirik's saga, seeing as I did not even know there were considered to be multiple Vinlands in the scholarly world.
Annotated Bibliography #2
The Vinland Sagas: Grænlendinga Saga and Eirík's Saga. The Norse Discovery of Americaby Magnus Magnusson; Herman Pálsson.Review by: Michael Wolfe.The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Jul., 1969), pp. 275-278
Wolfe's main focus is reviewing the Sagas, particularly Eirik the Red's Saga, critiquing the translation on historical value, entertainment value, fact and fiction, etc. to ultimately try and figure out the intention of Eirik's saga. This very basic article is a great help, however, seeing as he talks about the faith (even if only briefly) brought to Greenland in Eirik the Red's saga. He states on page 277 while criticizing another article that twelve parish churches were found in Greenland during archeological excavations. While in Eirik's saga we only know of the one that Eirik's wife has erected by her home. The first page Wolfe also discusses about how the faith of Norseman are treated “superficially and with little sympathy while assumptions of ecclesiastical oppression, borrowed from a one-sided picture of medieval conditions in Norway, find little support in the sources relating to Greenland” (Wolfe, pp 275). This particular quote stood out to me because I also felt while reading the saga (that idea of christian influence in the text I mentioned) is completely unopposed. The only “resistance” to it in the saga is Leif telling the King it might not be a good idea, and Thorhall and his hatred for the conversion (where he ultimately dies because of it). Those are the main reasons I found this to be a very valuable article, it helped somewhat cement my own thoughts I had about the conversion while reading the saga, seeing as I highly doubt it was peaceful and there was no resistance.
Annotated Bibliography #3
Evan Connell.American Eye: Vinland: Speculations & Certainties.The North American Review, Vol. 263, No. 1 (Spring, 1978), pp. 4-10.
This is yet another article dealing with the discovery and location of Vinland, but I think is done in a much better way. While the first article about the placement of Vinland was valuable, I feel this one was by far more helpful. This author took stories from the Greenlanders Sagas and used to to patch holes in Eirik the Red's saga, explaining that both texts had been translated in multiple ways. Connell mainly focuses on Bjarni, and his almost untold story in Eirik's saga, to Vinland. Along with Thorstein's travels, Thorvold's, and Leif and his foster father (whom was never mentioned in Eirik's saga). Summarizing these stories and providing other evidence from scholars as to where Vinland was located (northern east coast due to salmon activity and grape vines in the sagas, research like that) really helped straighten things out in Eirik the Red's saga. Connell's article is also very readable, and sacrificed academic language for a much more smooth and practical writing approach. Checkpoint #3 Hoidal, Oddvar. "Norseman and the North American Forests." Journal of Forest History 24.4 (1980): 200-03. Jstor. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org>. I chose this article to argue the pre-Columbian discovery of America due to the unique way it went about arguing the point. It provided a very logical standpoint at the beginning of the article, and only made even more sense as it progressed. The article started off with drawing on other facts of why the vikings (particularly the ones from the sagas) had discovered North America, even covering itself from "knit-picking" criticism stating it is unclear where exactly the vikings had landed/settled, but it was said to be on the coast somewhere, acknowledging that there has been debate as to where they specifically landed. It mentions the Greenlander's Saga and Eirik's saga as well, stating there is irrefutable evidence in both texts. This is where it really sucked me in, even though this article is short, it proved the existence of Leif (and others) finding america through one simple way: trees. The trees/vegetation that the vikings had in Greenland for construction relied on either driftwood or wood imported from Norway, so how then was their archaeological evidence of wood from the "New World" (America) on Greenland if the vikings did not discover America? It even mentioned in the footnote that a specific type of tree was used in both sagas mentioned.
Babcock, W.H. "Recent History and Present Status of the Vinland Problem." Geographical Review11.2 (1921): 265-82. Jstor. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org>. This article argues that (and labels) there is a present problem with the status of Vinland. The main argument is that the sagas are inaccurate, and if the sagas were to be looked at in a historical sense, the one too look at would be Hauk's Book narrative and the independent yet similar book entitled "Eric the Red." It proves this by matching geographical evidence from the saga with the geography of what the coast may have looked like they landed on, for example, they state that Karlsefni's outpost was most likely at Passamaquoddy Bay, and Hop was located at the most southerly point discovered in lower New England. The article provides very specific examples from the text, and recognizing there is a problem with trying to determine the discovery of Vinland, then attempts to rectify this issue throughout the remainder of the article. Using the work of other authors, the article attempts to harmonize the problem by connecting inaccurate books with those of accurate books through geographical location. I chose this article because I found it very insightful for both sides of the argument, it provides contradictions or issues with other texts then supports them later on by attempting to connect (for example early on in the article it talked about how there were a common 3 points, if in different places, that showed up in all the sagas) the locations of where the vikings may have landed.
McGhee, Robert. "Contact Between Native North Americans and the Medieval Norse: A Review of the Evidence." American Antiquity 49.1 (1984): 4-26. Jstor. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org>.
This text was unique in a way that the basis for proof of viking discovery/settlement in america by discussing the historical evidence of the relationship the vikings had with the native people that were in Vinland before the vikings showed up. The article provides background of the native american tribes that would have been living in Vinland at the time the vikings discovered it, and even made an interesting link between a people known as Thule cultured Eskimos and the vikings of Greenland, the Eskimos lived in Alaska and some migrated east and later migrated south. The Eskimos who migrated east settled in Northwester Greenland, and the later generation, in the thirteenth century colonized even further south along Greenland, bringing with them advanced technology of their time such as sinew backed bows and various other pieces that were discovered through what I would assume was archaeology. If the Eskimos reached Greenland why couldn't the vikings reach the coast of the new world? The article also points out the flaws in the sagas that tell of encounters with Indians, stating how they are few and far between, and very vague with the encounters. The group of people the article then shifts it's focus too is the Skraelings told of in the sagas, and example it provided was the canoes Karlsefni and his men saw the natives riding in, they looked like skin, which argues it could have been birch bark. This article took specific examples of encounters with the natives of america at the time in the text and attempted to de-bunk any confusion that may have happened, and also discussed accounts of the natives contacting the vikings in their homeland as well. The article has these claims supported by archaeological evidence and provided (like the forest article) a different way too look and prove the encounter of vikings as opposed to just maps or speculation on the geography of where the vikings landed in the sagas. Abstract This paper revolves around the idea of trying to prove the historical significance of Eirik the Red’s Saga, more specifically the importance the text has to do with the discovery of Vinland, and how it proves a pre-Columbian Norse landing of present day America. This is done by drawing from the natural elements found in the saga and showing how these natural elements, backed by archaeological and geographical research, are able to provide an interesting and unique way to prove that the discovery of Vinland is actually an accurate, truthful recounting of the discovery. If the right connections are made, these connections help support the idea that this saga is not merely just a work of embellished fiction unable to be used for historical purposes due to its lack of credibility, but most certainly can and should be viewed from a historical standpoint. Certainly, this paper takes a drastically different approach to the idea of Vinland, not attempting to bicker about the seafaring routes to Vinland, how they might have gotten blown off course, where they actually landed, or about charts and maps that have been unearthed. Rather, it elaborates explicitly on these natural elements to show that Vinland was founded during Leif’s (and others) expedition(s) and the saga is an accurate recounting. Numerous examples from the text lend itself to this idea, such as different plants, wildlife, and the general terrain. These elements are all objective aspects of the saga, there is no need for them to be tampered with or changed. The connections drawn between this saga and the Greenlanders’ saga pertaining to these natural elements are quite direct and apparent, only aiding the idea there was no need to alter the natural elements, giving me even more reassurance that this is a direct and fairly accurate way to prove the significance of Eirik’s saga pertaining to the discovery of Vinland.
Argument on Article In the brief section of an article Falling Into Vinland the author, like so many other authors, is attempting to discredit the historical relevancy of Eirik the Red’s Saga, arguing that it cannot be used for historical or archaeological purposes. I would like to discredit this article’s claim with support and evidence from other sources I have reviewed and the saga itself. I am in full belief that this sagahas historical input on the discovery of Vinland, most notably linked with the natural elements in the text. “After being tossed about at sea for a long time he chanced upon land where he had not expected any to be found. Fields of self-sown wheat and vines were growing there; also, there were trees known as maple, and they took specimens of all of them” (Kunz 661). This portion of the saga is when Leif was sailing back from Norway to convert Greenland to Christianity. It has been determined by scholars that this unknown land is Vinland, and Leif’s voyage goes into much more detail in the Greenlanders’ Saga. It is the connection drawn between these sagas that are elaborated in an article by Oddvar Hoidal titled North American Forests. Hoidal states that North America was an invaluable resource for the Norse who discovered it, seeing as Greenland was a land full of stunted bushes and not the type of hardwood trees found in America, maple trees for example, like the one mentioned above in Eirik’s saga, along with the Greenlanders’ saga. In both sagas, the Norse both praised the wood they were able to harvest in America. How is it we know about this? Archeological research, digs, and evidence. This evidence that was supplied was able to be connected back to the text, rendering the argument from the mentioned article irrelevant. Article Annotations Wiley, John. “Discussion And Conclusions.” Acta Arcaelogica 83.1 (2012): 171-174. Academic Search Complete: Web. 26 Nov. 2014. This article attempts to disprove the historical relevance and inaccuracy of not only Eirik’s saga but also the Greenlanders’ saga, which has direct ties to Eirik’s saga. This was also the article I did my argument against. I am incorporating this article in my paper because I feel it is an important and invaluable writing skill to be able to recognize the other side of the argument in a paper, and then critically argue against it with your own standpoint. Not only does it strengthen your ability as a writer, seeing as it makes you step back from your own point of view for a little bit, it also helps to focus in on a really specific aspect of an argument with one’s own critical argument against it. In this case taking a very broad argument against my thesis and applying a very critical and focused standpoint against that argument, with sufficient evidence to support it. This article, however, focuses on a rather interesting aspect that I had never seen before. In an almost contradicting manner it focuses on archaeological evidence of pitfalls found in Vinland, and discusses how they were a Norwegian method of hunting caribou, much like the tens of thousands of pitfalls found in Scandinavia through archaeological means. At the end, the article states that even after the research incorporated, the researchers are left with many more questions and incomplete answers. The author was not listed, but John Wiley is the owner of Acta Arcaelogica an online encyclopedia of sorts, that I have seen in numerous other searches on the JSTOR database. M.L. Fernald. “The Natural History of Ancient Vinland and Its Geographic Significance.” Bulletin of the American Geographical Society. Vol. 47, No. 9 (1915): 686-687 JSTOR: Web. 26 Nov. 2014. This article is about Vinland or “Wineland The Good,” and is written by M.L. Fernald. It tells the readers a brief discovery of Vinland, and why it is called Vinland. Leif found a wineberry, or a vinber and named it Vinland. The article then bounces off this idea of the vinber and describes a multiple instances of natural elements, wildlife, plants, landscapes, and attempts to prove that due to the description and identification of these aspects how Vinland is confined to the northern hemisphere. I am not really interested in my paper about the location of Vinland, but rather the natural elements described in the text to help prove the historical relevancy in the saga, and that is where this article drew me in. Not only did it provide sound reasoning drawing off past research, but it also touched on almost every single specific plant, animal, or landscape mentioned in Eirik’s Saga and the Greenlanders’ Saga, even that strange whale that made them all sick. This will prove to be an extremely useful source for my thesis due to the direct connections to the saga, and the sound reasoning it provides for those connections. Seeing as this article was published by the American Geographical Society, I think it is safe to say the author’s credibility does not need to be questioned.
M.L. Fernald. “Notes On the Plants of Wineland The Good.” Rhodora. Vol. 12, No. 134 (1910): 17-38 JSTOR: Web. 26 Nov. 2014. After I found the previous article by Fernald, I was beyond ecstatic to find another one that was much longer than the last one. This article was published by the New England Botanical Club, Fernald now has at least two works published by different sources, only strengthening their credibility as an author. This article deals with discussing, in depth, the type of plants found in “Windeland The Good” and the various botanical studies over the years to not only identify plants in Vinland, but any other areas (Scandinavia, England, Germany) that may have had any influence as far as botanical evidence dealing with the placement of Vinland. Focusing, yet again, heavily on the wine grape as the main type of plant, comparing and contrasting it too the multitude of other grapes around Vinland, or from other areas of the world. Well the article is rather bland, seeing as the first six pages are about the origin of the true grape which holds almost no relevance to my thesis until about halfway in. It stresses an important concept that I had not thought about exploring before, the similarities between Vinland and Greenland. The vinber resembled a berry the Norse were familiar with, either the Red/Black Currant or the Mountain Cranberry. Even if this is not obvious in the text, I’d say that based on this research on plants that it only helps strengthen the idea that the “grape vine” found in the text, especially since in The Greenlanders’ saga Leif’s step father was found already eating the vinber and knew it was edible, only helps lend credibility to my thesis, seeing as the Norse recognized this as an unknown land but recognized some of the wildlife/pants because it was a landscape in the northern hemisphere and must have shared some aspects with Greenland, especially if the climate was the same for a season.
Checkpoint #2:
Summary: Eirik the Red's Saga
Eirik the Red's saga, oddly enough, starts out telling the tales of previous King's and other well known vikings, it almost seems to be a tribute to previous viking kings/explorers. Next, we discover the reason Eirik settled Greenland in the first place, it was actually because he had been exiled from his home. He got into a dispute with a kinsman, Eirik's slaves caused a landslide which fell on his kinsman's farm, which in turn caused his kinsman to kill Eirik's slave. Eirik got angered by this, and killed his kinsman, thus being sent into exile. Eirik told his friends before leaving that if he discovered the land he was looking for, he would send word for his friends.
This begins Thorbjorn's part of the tale, who was a friend of Eirik. He explained to his kinsman that he has lived a good life here, but now wishes to take up Eirik's offer. He sold his lands, bought a ship, took his wife and thirty of his men, and began his journey towards Greenland and Eirik. When Thorbjorn finally arrived in Greenland, Eirik was beyond happy to see him, and gave him land, where he lived a good life from then on.
Eirik had a wife called Thjodhild and two sons, Thorstein and Leif. Thornstein lived at home with Eirik, and Leif sailed to Norway where he was one of King Olaf's men. Before Leif reached Norway, however, his ship had been blown off course to the Hebrides, and had to spend most of their summer in the islands, due to not catching a favorable wind. While he stayed at Hebrides, Leif fell in love with a woman, Thorgunna. Thorgunna wished to sail with Leif when he left for Greenland again, Leif was reluctant until Thorgunna told him she was carrying his child, he ended up marrying her and taking her with him.
After they left, Leif and his men made land in Norway in the autumn. This is when he became one of the king's men. The king's first request of Leif was to sail to Greenland and convert it to Christianity. Leif explained to the king this may not go over well, and be matched with harsh resistance. The king told him to sail regardless, Leif set out for Greenland.
Leif landed in Eiriksfjord, he went home to the famr at Brattahlid where he began to spread the word of King Olaf and Christianity throughout the country. Eirik was reluctant to convert, but his wife, Thjodhild was quick to convert and had a church built close to the house. This is where she prayed with many others who converted, and refused to sleep with Eirik after her conversion.
Eventually, Eirik and his son Thorstein set out with a group of men to find the land that Leif discovered, they came close to Iceland and Ireland, but failed to reach their intended destination, they ended up back in Eiriksfjord, where they had set sail from earlier that summer. They went home to Brattahlid and spent the winter there.
Thorstein married Gudrid, promptly after their wedding they went to his namesake in Lysufjord, where sickness struck the farm shortly after the start of winter. Sigrid, Thorstein, and Thorbjorn died from the sickness. Gudrid went to live with Eirik.
During the autumn, Karlsefni and his companions landed in Eiriksfjord (Karlsefni lived in Iceland). When they landed, Eirik and his Greenlanders immediately began to trade with them. After a very successful Yule feast, Karlsefni asked Eirik for Gudrid's hand in marriage. The winter consisted of much merrymaking in Brattahlid, seeing as Eirik agreed to Karlsefni's offer and said it was a fine match.
During the winter, there was a lot of talk about Karlsefni and Snorri (one of his kinsman) setting sail for Vinland. Thorvald, Eirik's son, accompanied them on the voyage to Vinland, along with numerous of Eirik's kinsman, such as Thorhall the Huntsman. Thorhall was not a fan of the conversion that had come through Greendland, and generally kept to himself and was insulting but barely spoke a word. Nevertheless, he was trusted by Eirik. They eventually landed in Kjalarnes, and meant to see if the land was suitable or not. Since two scouts had returned with good crops, Karlsefni decided this was a good piece of land, and then continued to sail until they reached a fjord. This fjord is where they unloaded the cargo, and spent the winter there.
This winter ended up being very harsh, they had not anticipated for it, and soon grew short on food. They set out to find food, but found very little. They asked God for help, and did not get as speedy of a response as they would like. At the same time, Thorhall went missing, when they found him days later he was standing at the edge of a cliff with his eyes to the sky mumbling something. They wondered what he was doing, to which he said don't concern yourself. Regardless, they brought him back with them. Shortly after this they found a beached whale, no one recognized what type of whale it was, but they boiled the meat and ate it anyway. The meat ended up making them sick, and Thorhall said it was a gift from his God, Thor. Once the rest of the men found this, they did not want to eat the whale anymore and threw it away, praying for forgiveness from their God. After this the weather improved, and they had plenty of food for the rest of the winter. In the spring they moved further into Straumsfjord and lived on produce of hunting inland and fishing at the shoreline.
They then then meant to set out again, but Thorhall wanted to head further North, and Karlsefni wished to sail further south. They eventually split up, after Thorhall separated with his crew from Karlsefni, they ended up accidently landing in Ireland, where they were beaten and enslaved, which is where Thorhall died.
Karlsefni and his men successfully ended up sailing further south, and found even more bountiful land. They also found natives to trade with, people they had never seen before. They traded peacefully at first, until a bull of Karlsefni's escaped and frightened the natives. They next day they returned and began fighting with Karlsefni and his men, they retreated back north to the fjord they originally landed at. One morning while at Straimsfjord Karlsefni's men saw something shiny above a clearing in the trees, a one legged man came down to the shop and shot Thorvald, he died shortly after.
After this encounter, they decided to spend their third winter in Straumsfjord, during autumn sailed south to Markland where they met 5 natives. They ended up taking the two children and baptized them and taught them their ways. After this they sailed back to Greenland and spent the winter with Eirik the Red. The following summer, Karlsefni sailed for Iceland with Gudrid and went home to his farm at Reynines.
Quote 1: “Leif also chanced upon men clinging to a ship's wreck, whom he brought home and found shelter for over the winter. In so doing, he showed his strong character and kindness. He converted the country to Christianity.* Afterwards he became known as Leif the Lucky” (Kunz, pp 661).
The reason I picked this quote is because simply how much it threw me off guard. During this point in the saga, Leif is discussing with King Olaf about sailing to Greenland and converting it to Christianity, shortly after being told how he set sail and was being tossed around at sea, it discusses how he found men clinging to a shop's wreck, then this line popped up out of no where “He converted the country to Christianity.*” I did not even have to read the explanation following the asterisk at the bottom of the page to know this was out of place. The asterisk says that the whole sentence, or even paragraph, seems to be misplaced. The country the excerpt is talking about refers to Greenland. Why was this misplaced though? There was never another misplaced paragraph, it could be because it was mistranslated, or it got mixed up during the rewriting of the story, or because of all the other “Christian lens” quotes I have found throughout this text, it was put there on purpose to help reinforce the fact to the reader that Leif converted Greenland, before it even happened. I related this idea to the discussion we had in class about how the literate ones were the priests and monks, and maybe this was done on purpose to help embed this idea in the reader's mind.
Quote 2: “Once they heard this no one wanted to eat the whale meat, they cast it off a cliff and threw themselves at God's mercy. The weather improved so they could go fishing, and from then on they had supplies in plenty” (Kunz, pp 668).
This quote struck me as quite odd as well, keeping with that Christian lens theme. Karlsefni and his men had found a whale thanks to Thorhall and his prayers to Thor (they did not know this was the reason they found it when they began eating the whale) so they decided to eat it and then became ill shortly after eating the whale. This quote came into context right after Thorhall told them the whale was essentially a gift from Thor. There is that idea of the Christian lens again, a group of men find a whale (that they do not recognize in anyway, even if Karlsefni conveniently has a wide knowledge about whales), presume to eat said whale, then become ill and find out it was eaten in a pagan context, for lack of better terms. The men pray to God, the weather clears, birds chirp, there is plenty of food, and they all live happily ever after. This point in the plot only further leads me to believe that this was part was written to try and show that God was better than a pagan deity, especially since Thorhall specifically says something along the lines of “Dear Old Redbeard” (Thor) proving to be better and provide more help than Christ.
Quote 3: “They then separated, and Thorhall and his Crew sailed north past Furdustrandir and Kjalarnes, and from there attempted to sail to the west of it. But they ran into storms and were driven ashore in Ireland, where they were beaten and enslaved. There Thorhall died” (Kunz, pp 669).
Keeping with this idea of viewing it through a Christian lens or this work being influenced (possibly falsely) by the educated Christians hearing the story, I chose to pick this quote on the next page. Shortly after eating the whale they discuss where to sail next, Thorhall wishes to sail north where as Karlsefni wishes to sail south. Thorhall had already been described earlier in the text as essentially hating the conversion that came through Greenland, and the religion that came with it. I knew this would come into play later in the text, and it did multiple times. This time being the last for Thorhall, since he was enslaved and killed. The point I am getting at is before they split, Thorhall said what looked to be almost prayers (they called them verses) about his pagan religion. Immediately after saying these, him and Karlsefni split up and Thorhall got tossed at sea, landed in Ireland, and died. While Karlsefni, the Christian, sailed safely southward, and even made it safely back home after his voyage was concluded, when the saga ended.
Annotated Bibliography #1
Matti Kaups, Douglas R. McManis, Brian Birch and John C. Hudson. Some Observations on Vinland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 603-609.
The author is mainly concerned with providing evidence, from other authors in the Annals text and authors outside the text, to attempt to prove that Eirik the Red's Saga proves a “pre-Columbian Norse discovery of America,” but also that there is clarification needed on the contradictory statement “there is not a Vinland; there are many Vinlands.” The author is stating that these multiple Vinlands “discovered” by other scholars (Rafn's Vinland, Mowat's Vinland, etc) need to be associated with the respective author so these locations are not to be confused with the Vinland region and sites in the sagas. The author does a good job of backing up his evidence, citing the authors other statements and then providing either a supportive analysis, or a counter analysis. He even goes into detail describing latitude and longitude of certain scholars Vinlands compared too where the Vinland in the saga may have been described. Even if the article was a little hard to follow, I think it is immensely useful to have while one reads Eirik's saga, seeing as I did not even know there were considered to be multiple Vinlands in the scholarly world.
Annotated Bibliography #2
The Vinland Sagas: Grænlendinga Saga and Eirík's Saga. The Norse Discovery of America by Magnus Magnusson; Herman Pálsson. Review by: Michael Wolfe. The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 55, No. 2 (Jul., 1969), pp. 275-278
Wolfe's main focus is reviewing the Sagas, particularly Eirik the Red's Saga, critiquing the translation on historical value, entertainment value, fact and fiction, etc. to ultimately try and figure out the intention of Eirik's saga. This very basic article is a great help, however, seeing as he talks about the faith (even if only briefly) brought to Greenland in Eirik the Red's saga. He states on page 277 while criticizing another article that twelve parish churches were found in Greenland during archeological excavations. While in Eirik's saga we only know of the one that Eirik's wife has erected by her home. The first page Wolfe also discusses about how the faith of Norseman are treated “superficially and with little sympathy while assumptions of ecclesiastical oppression, borrowed from a one-sided picture of medieval conditions in Norway, find little support in the sources relating to Greenland” (Wolfe, pp 275). This particular quote stood out to me because I also felt while reading the saga (that idea of christian influence in the text I mentioned) is completely unopposed. The only “resistance” to it in the saga is Leif telling the King it might not be a good idea, and Thorhall and his hatred for the conversion (where he ultimately dies because of it). Those are the main reasons I found this to be a very valuable article, it helped somewhat cement my own thoughts I had about the conversion while reading the saga, seeing as I highly doubt it was peaceful and there was no resistance.
Annotated Bibliography #3
Evan Connell. American Eye: Vinland: Speculations & Certainties. The North American Review, Vol. 263, No. 1 (Spring, 1978), pp. 4-10.
This is yet another article dealing with the discovery and location of Vinland, but I think is done in a much better way. While the first article about the placement of Vinland was valuable, I feel this one was by far more helpful. This author took stories from the Greenlanders Sagas and used to to patch holes in Eirik the Red's saga, explaining that both texts had been translated in multiple ways. Connell mainly focuses on Bjarni, and his almost untold story in Eirik's saga, to Vinland. Along with Thorstein's travels, Thorvold's, and Leif and his foster father (whom was never mentioned in Eirik's saga). Summarizing these stories and providing other evidence from scholars as to where Vinland was located (northern east coast due to salmon activity and grape vines in the sagas, research like that) really helped straighten things out in Eirik the Red's saga. Connell's article is also very readable, and sacrificed academic language for a much more smooth and practical writing approach.
Checkpoint #3
Hoidal, Oddvar. "Norseman and the North American Forests." Journal of Forest History 24.4 (1980): 200-03. Jstor. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org>.
I chose this article to argue the pre-Columbian discovery of America due to the unique way it went about arguing the point. It provided a very logical standpoint at the beginning of the article, and only made even more sense as it progressed. The article started off with drawing on other facts of why the vikings (particularly the ones from the sagas) had discovered North America, even covering itself from "knit-picking" criticism stating it is unclear where exactly the vikings had landed/settled, but it was said to be on the coast somewhere, acknowledging that there has been debate as to where they specifically landed. It mentions the Greenlander's Saga and Eirik's saga as well, stating there is irrefutable evidence in both texts. This is where it really sucked me in, even though this article is short, it proved the existence of Leif (and others) finding america through one simple way: trees. The trees/vegetation that the vikings had in Greenland for construction relied on either driftwood or wood imported from Norway, so how then was their archaeological evidence of wood from the "New World" (America) on Greenland if the vikings did not discover America? It even mentioned in the footnote that a specific type of tree was used in both sagas mentioned.
Babcock, W.H. "Recent History and Present Status of the Vinland Problem." Geographical Review11.2 (1921): 265-82. Jstor. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org>.
This article argues that (and labels) there is a present problem with the status of Vinland. The main argument is that the sagas are inaccurate, and if the sagas were to be looked at in a historical sense, the one too look at would be Hauk's Book narrative and the independent yet similar book entitled "Eric the Red." It proves this by matching geographical evidence from the saga with the geography of what the coast may have looked like they landed on, for example, they state that Karlsefni's outpost was most likely at Passamaquoddy Bay, and Hop was located at the most southerly point discovered in lower New England. The article provides very specific examples from the text, and recognizing there is a problem with trying to determine the discovery of Vinland, then attempts to rectify this issue throughout the remainder of the article. Using the work of other authors, the article attempts to harmonize the problem by connecting inaccurate books with those of accurate books through geographical location. I chose this article because I found it very insightful for both sides of the argument, it provides contradictions or issues with other texts then supports them later on by attempting to connect (for example early on in the article it talked about how there were a common 3 points, if in different places, that showed up in all the sagas) the locations of where the vikings may have landed.
McGhee, Robert. "Contact Between Native North Americans and the Medieval Norse: A Review of the Evidence." American Antiquity 49.1 (1984): 4-26. Jstor. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org>.
This text was unique in a way that the basis for proof of viking discovery/settlement in america by discussing the historical evidence of the relationship the vikings had with the native people that were in Vinland before the vikings showed up. The article provides background of the native american tribes that would have been living in Vinland at the time the vikings discovered it, and even made an interesting link between a people known as Thule cultured Eskimos and the vikings of Greenland, the Eskimos lived in Alaska and some migrated east and later migrated south. The Eskimos who migrated east settled in Northwester Greenland, and the later generation, in the thirteenth century colonized even further south along Greenland, bringing with them advanced technology of their time such as sinew backed bows and various other pieces that were discovered through what I would assume was archaeology. If the Eskimos reached Greenland why couldn't the vikings reach the coast of the new world? The article also points out the flaws in the sagas that tell of encounters with Indians, stating how they are few and far between, and very vague with the encounters. The group of people the article then shifts it's focus too is the Skraelings told of in the sagas, and example it provided was the canoes Karlsefni and his men saw the natives riding in, they looked like skin, which argues it could have been birch bark. This article took specific examples of encounters with the natives of america at the time in the text and attempted to de-bunk any confusion that may have happened, and also discussed accounts of the natives contacting the vikings in their homeland as well. The article has these claims supported by archaeological evidence and provided (like the forest article) a different way too look and prove the encounter of vikings as opposed to just maps or speculation on the geography of where the vikings landed in the sagas.
Abstract
This paper revolves around the idea of trying to prove the historical significance of Eirik the Red’s Saga, more specifically the importance the text has to do with the discovery of Vinland, and how it proves a pre-Columbian Norse landing of present day America. This is done by drawing from the natural elements found in the saga and showing how these natural elements, backed by archaeological and geographical research, are able to provide an interesting and unique way to prove that the discovery of Vinland is actually an accurate, truthful recounting of the discovery. If the right connections are made, these connections help support the idea that this saga is not merely just a work of embellished fiction unable to be used for historical purposes due to its lack of credibility, but most certainly can and should be viewed from a historical standpoint. Certainly, this paper takes a drastically different approach to the idea of Vinland, not attempting to bicker about the seafaring routes to Vinland, how they might have gotten blown off course, where they actually landed, or about charts and maps that have been unearthed. Rather, it elaborates explicitly on these natural elements to show that Vinland was founded during Leif’s (and others) expedition(s) and the saga is an accurate recounting. Numerous examples from the text lend itself to this idea, such as different plants, wildlife, and the general terrain. These elements are all objective aspects of the saga, there is no need for them to be tampered with or changed. The connections drawn between this saga and the Greenlanders’ saga pertaining to these natural elements are quite direct and apparent, only aiding the idea there was no need to alter the natural elements, giving me even more reassurance that this is a direct and fairly accurate way to prove the significance of Eirik’s saga pertaining to the discovery of Vinland.
Argument on Article
In the brief section of an article Falling Into Vinland the author, like so many other authors, is attempting to discredit the historical relevancy of Eirik the Red’s Saga, arguing that it cannot be used for historical or archaeological purposes. I would like to discredit this article’s claim with support and evidence from other sources I have reviewed and the saga itself. I am in full belief that this sagahas historical input on the discovery of Vinland, most notably linked with the natural elements in the text. “After being tossed about at sea for a long time he chanced upon land where he had not expected any to be found. Fields of self-sown wheat and vines were growing there; also, there were trees known as maple, and they took specimens of all of them” (Kunz 661). This portion of the saga is when Leif was sailing back from Norway to convert Greenland to Christianity. It has been determined by scholars that this unknown land is Vinland, and Leif’s voyage goes into much more detail in the Greenlanders’ Saga. It is the connection drawn between these sagas that are elaborated in an article by Oddvar Hoidal titled North American Forests. Hoidal states that North America was an invaluable resource for the Norse who discovered it, seeing as Greenland was a land full of stunted bushes and not the type of hardwood trees found in America, maple trees for example, like the one mentioned above in Eirik’s saga, along with the Greenlanders’ saga. In both sagas, the Norse both praised the wood they were able to harvest in America. How is it we know about this? Archeological research, digs, and evidence. This evidence that was supplied was able to be connected back to the text, rendering the argument from the mentioned article irrelevant.
Article Annotations
Wiley, John. “Discussion And Conclusions.” Acta Arcaelogica 83.1 (2012): 171-174. Academic Search Complete: Web. 26 Nov. 2014.
This article attempts to disprove the historical relevance and inaccuracy of not only Eirik’s saga but also the Greenlanders’ saga, which has direct ties to Eirik’s saga. This was also the article I did my argument against. I am incorporating this article in my paper because I feel it is an important and invaluable writing skill to be able to recognize the other side of the argument in a paper, and then critically argue against it with your own standpoint. Not only does it strengthen your ability as a writer, seeing as it makes you step back from your own point of view for a little bit, it also helps to focus in on a really specific aspect of an argument with one’s own critical argument against it. In this case taking a very broad argument against my thesis and applying a very critical and focused standpoint against that argument, with sufficient evidence to support it. This article, however, focuses on a rather interesting aspect that I had never seen before. In an almost contradicting manner it focuses on archaeological evidence of pitfalls found in Vinland, and discusses how they were a Norwegian method of hunting caribou, much like the tens of thousands of pitfalls found in Scandinavia through archaeological means. At the end, the article states that even after the research incorporated, the researchers are left with many more questions and incomplete answers. The author was not listed, but John Wiley is the owner of Acta Arcaelogica an online encyclopedia of sorts, that I have seen in numerous other searches on the JSTOR database.
M.L. Fernald. “The Natural History of Ancient Vinland and Its Geographic Significance.” Bulletin of the American Geographical Society. Vol. 47, No. 9 (1915): 686-687 JSTOR: Web. 26 Nov. 2014.
This article is about Vinland or “Wineland The Good,” and is written by M.L. Fernald. It tells the readers a brief discovery of Vinland, and why it is called Vinland. Leif found a wineberry, or a vinber and named it Vinland. The article then bounces off this idea of the vinber and describes a multiple instances of natural elements, wildlife, plants, landscapes, and attempts to prove that due to the description and identification of these aspects how Vinland is confined to the northern hemisphere. I am not really interested in my paper about the location of Vinland, but rather the natural elements described in the text to help prove the historical relevancy in the saga, and that is where this article drew me in. Not only did it provide sound reasoning drawing off past research, but it also touched on almost every single specific plant, animal, or landscape mentioned in Eirik’s Saga and the Greenlanders’ Saga, even that strange whale that made them all sick. This will prove to be an extremely useful source for my thesis due to the direct connections to the saga, and the sound reasoning it provides for those connections. Seeing as this article was published by the American Geographical Society, I think it is safe to say the author’s credibility does not need to be questioned.
M.L. Fernald. “Notes On the Plants of Wineland The Good.” Rhodora. Vol. 12, No. 134 (1910): 17-38 JSTOR: Web. 26 Nov. 2014.
After I found the previous article by Fernald, I was beyond ecstatic to find another one that was much longer than the last one. This article was published by the New England Botanical Club, Fernald now has at least two works published by different sources, only strengthening their credibility as an author. This article deals with discussing, in depth, the type of plants found in “Windeland The Good” and the various botanical studies over the years to not only identify plants in Vinland, but any other areas (Scandinavia, England, Germany) that may have had any influence as far as botanical evidence dealing with the placement of Vinland. Focusing, yet again, heavily on the wine grape as the main type of plant, comparing and contrasting it too the multitude of other grapes around Vinland, or from other areas of the world. Well the article is rather bland, seeing as the first six pages are about the origin of the true grape which holds almost no relevance to my thesis until about halfway in. It stresses an important concept that I had not thought about exploring before, the similarities between Vinland and Greenland. The vinber resembled a berry the Norse were familiar with, either the Red/Black Currant or the Mountain Cranberry. Even if this is not obvious in the text, I’d say that based on this research on plants that it only helps strengthen the idea that the “grape vine” found in the text, especially since in The Greenlanders’ saga Leif’s step father was found already eating the vinber and knew it was edible, only helps lend credibility to my thesis, seeing as the Norse recognized this as an unknown land but recognized some of the wildlife/pants because it was a landscape in the northern hemisphere and must have shared some aspects with Greenland, especially if the climate was the same for a season.